Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Characteristics and Processes of Top Management Teams in High-Tech Firms

  • Chapter
Book cover The Management of Enterprises in the People’s Republic of China

Abstract

This chapter reports the results of two exploratory, interview-based studies of the top management teams (TMTs) of entrepreneurial firms in Chinese high-tech industries. Results indicated that the formal team leaders (firm presidents) were typically young and had versatile backgrounds and many of the major characteristics previously identified for effective leaders. Members of the TMTs that had been successful tended to share the leader’s values and goals, hold complementary skills, and have compatible personality traits. Leader quality and team capacity to make decisions independently were decisive for team effectiveness. We present a revised model with additional antecedents that were not in the preliminary model based on the existing literature.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Alper, S., Tjosvold, D., & Law, K. S. 2000. Conflict management, efficacy, and performance in organizational teams. Personnel Psychology, 53: 625–642.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amason, A. C. 1996. Distinguishing the effects of functional and dysfunctional conflict on strategic decision making: Resolving a paradox for top management teams. Academy of Management Journal, 39: 123–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amason, A. C., & Sapienza, H. J. 1997. The effects of top management team size and interaction norms on cognitive and affective conflict. Journal of Management, 23: 495–516.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, N. R., & West, M. A. 1998. Measuring climate for work group innovation: Development and validation of the team climate inventory. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19: 235–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bantel, K. A. 1993. Top team, environment, and performance effects on strategic planning formality. Group and Organization Management, 18: 436–458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barsade, S. G., Ward, A. J., Turner, J. D. F., & Sonnenfeld, J. A. 2000. To your heart’s content: A model of affective diversity in top management teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45: 802–836.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bishop, J. W., Scott, K. D., & Burroughs, S. M. 2000. Support, commitment, and employee outcomes in a team environment. Journal of Management, 26: 1113–1132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boeker, W. 1997. Strategic change: The influence of managerial characteristics and organizational growth. Academy of Management Journal, 40: 152–170.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bower, M. 1997. The will to lead: Running a business with a network of leaders. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowers, C. A., Pharmer, J. A., & Salas, E. 2000. When member homogeneity is needed in work teams — A meta-analysis. Small Group Research, 31: 305–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, H. X. 1999. Preliminary research of the type and construction distribution for China hi-tech developing areas. Economic Geography (in Chinese), 1: 74–78

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, S. G. & Bailey, D. E. 1997. What makes teams work: Group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite. Journal of Management, 23: 239–290.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, S. G., Chang, L., & Ledford, G. E. 1997. A hierarchical construct of selfmanagement leadership and its relationship to quality of work life and perceived work group effectiveness. Personnel Psychology, 50: 275–308.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edmondson, A. 1999. Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44: 350–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K. M. 1989. Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14: 532–550.

    Google Scholar 

  • Finkelstein, S. 1992. Power in top management teams: Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 35: 505–538.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finkelstein, S., & Hambrick, D. C. 1990. Top-management-team tenure and organizational outcomes: The moderating role of managerial discretion. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35: 484–503.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guan Zi. 1999. Guanzi (in Chinese). Beijing: Jing Hua Publishing House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hackman, J. R. 1990. Groups that work (and those that don’t). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haleblian, J., & Finkelstein, S. 1993. Top management team size, CEO dominance, and firm performance: The moderating roles of environmental turbulence and discretion. Academy of Management Journal, 36: 844–863.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hambrick, D. C. 1994. Top management groups: A conceptual integration and reconsideration of the “team” label. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, vol. 16: 171–213. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hambrick, D. C., Cho, T. S., & Chen, M. J. 1996. The influence of top management team heterogeneity on firms’ competitive moves. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41: 659–684.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hambrick, D. C., & D’Aveni, R. A. 1992. Top team deterioration as part of the downward spiral of large corporate bankruptcies. Management Science, 38: 1445–1466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hambrick, D. C. & Mason, P. A 1984. Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers. Academy of Management Review, 9: 193–206.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, D. A., Price, K. H., & Bell, M. P. 1998. Beyond relational demography: Time and the effects of surface-and deep-level diversity on work group cohesion. Academy of Management Journal, 41: 96–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hogan, R., Curphy, G. J., & Hogan, J. 1994. What we know about leadership: Effectiveness and personality. American Psychologist, 49: 493–504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Ruiz-Quintanilla, S. A., Dorfman, P. W., Javidan, M., Dickson, M. W., Gupta, V., et al. 1999. Cultural influences on leadership and organizations: Project GLOBE. In W. H. Mobley, M. J. Gessner, & V. Arnold (Eds.), Advances in global leadership, vol. 1: 171–233. Stamford, CT: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • House, R., Delbecq, A. & Taris, T. Value-based leadership: A theory and an empirical test. Working paper, University of Pennsylvania.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hyatt, D. E., & Ruddy, T. M. 1997. An examination of the relationship between work group characteristics and performance: Once more into the breech. Personnel Psychology, 50: 553–585.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iaquinto, A. L., & Fredrickson, J. W. 1997. Top management team agreement about the strategic decision process: A test of some of its determinants and consequences. Strategic Management Journal, 18: 63–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, S. E. 1992. Consequences of group composition for the interpersonal dynamics of strategic issue processing. In P. Shrivastava, A. Huff, & J. Dutton (Eds.), Advances in srategic management: 345–382. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jehn, K. A., Northcraft, G. B., & Neale, M. A. 1999. Why differences make a difference: A field study of diversity, conflict, and performance in workgroups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44: 741–763.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keck, S. L. 1997. Top management team structure: Differential effects by environmental context. Organization Science 8(2): 143–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kilduff, M., Angelmar, R, & Mehra, A. 2000. Top management team diversity and firm performance: Examining the role of cognitions. Organization Science, 11(1): 21–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knight, D., Pearce, C. L., Smith, K. G., Olian, J. D., Sims, H. P., Smith, K. A., & Flood, P. 1999. Top management team diversity, group process, and strategic consensus. Strategic Management Journal, 20: 445–465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krishnan, H. A., Miller, A., & Judge, W. Q. 1997. Diversification and top management team complementarity: Is performance improved by merging similar or dissimilar teams? Strategic Management Journal, 18: 361–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawrence, B. S. 1997. The black box of organizational demography. Organization Science, 8: 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mathieu, J. E., Heffner, T. S., Goodwin, G. F., Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. 2000. The influence of shared mental models on team process and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85: 273–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, M. W., Lu, Y., & Lan, H. L. 2001. Institutional vacuums: Changing frameworks for state-owned enterprises in China. Working paper, University of Pennsylvania.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. 1994. An expanded sourcebook: Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murray, A. 1989. Top management group heterogeneity and firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 10: 125–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neff, T. J., & Citrin J. M. 1999. Lessons from the top. New York: Currency & Doubleday.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neuman, G. A. & Wright, J. 1999. Team effectiveness: Beyond skills and cognitive ability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84: 376–389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Papadakis, V. M., Lioukas, S., & Chambers, D. 1998. Strategic decision-making processes: The role of management and context. Strategic Management Journal, 19: 115–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pascale, R. T. 1990. Managing on the edge. New York: Simon & Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pelled, L. H., Eisenhardt, K. M., & Xin, K. R. 1999. Exploring the black box: An analysis of work group diversity, confict, and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44: 1–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer, J. 1983. Organizational demography. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, vol.5: 295–357. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Priem, R. L., Lyon, D. W., & Dess, G. G. 1999. Inherent limitations of demographic proxies in top management team heterogeneity research. Journal of Management, 25: 935–953.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shaw, J. B. & Barrett-Power, E. 1998. The effects of diversity on small work group processes and performance. Human Relations, 51: 1307–1325.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simons, T. L., & Peterson, R. S. 2000. Task conflict and relationship conflict in top management teams: The pivotal role of intragroup trust. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 102–111.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simons, T., Pelled, L. H., & Smith, K. A. 1999. Making use of difference: Diversity, debate, and decision comprehensiveness in top management teams. Academy of Management Journal, 42: 662–673.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, K., Smith, K., Olian, L, Sims, H., Jr., O’Bannon, D., & Scully, J. 1994. Top management team demography and process: The role of social integration and communication. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39: 412–438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, P. B., Dugan, S., & Trompenaars, F. 1996. National culture and the values of organizational employees: A dimensional analysis across 43 nations. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 27(2): 231–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stewart, G. L., & Barrick, M. R. 2000. Team structure and performance: Assessing the mediating role of intrateam process and the moderating role of task type. Academy of Management Journal, 43: 135–148.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taggar, S., Hackett, R., & Saha, S. 1999. Leadership emergence in autonomous work teams: Antecedents and outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 52: 899–926.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tesluk, P. E., & Mathieu, J. E. 1999. Overcoming roadblocks to effectiveness: Incorporating management of performance barriers into models of work group effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84: 200–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tjosvold, D. 1992. The conflict-positive organization: Stimulate diversity and create unity. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsui, A., & Gutek, B. 1999. Demographic differences in organizations: Current research and future directions. New York: Lexington Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waldman, D., Ramirez, G., House, R., & Puranam, P. 2001. Does leadership matter? CEO leadership attributes and profitability under conditions of perceived environmental uncertainty. Academy of Management Journal, 44: 134–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webber, S. S., & Donahue, L. M. 2001. Impact of highly and less job-related diversity on work group cohesion and performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Management, 27: 141–162.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wegge, J. 2000. Participation in group goal setting: Some novel findings and a comprehensive model as a new ending to an old story. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 49: 498–516.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • West, C. T., & Schwenk, C. R. 1996 Top management team strategic consensus, demographic homogeneity and firm performance: A report of resounding nonfindings. Strategic Management Journal, 17: 571–576.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • West, M. A. and N. R. Anderson. 1996. Innovation in top management teams. Journal of Applied Psychology. 81: 680–693.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • West, M. A., Borrill, C. S., & Unsworth, K. L. 1998. Team effectiveness in organizations. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology, vol. 13: 1–48. Chichester, UK: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winter, D. G. 1992. Scoring system for responsibility. In C.P. Smith (Ed.), Motivation and personality: Handbook of thematic content analysis: 506–511. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Yan, A., & Gray, B. 1994. Bargaining power, management control, and performance in the United States-China joint ventures: A comparative case study. Academy of Management Journal, 37: 1478–1517.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. K. 1989. Case study research: Design and methods (rev. ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yuki, G. 1998. Leadership in organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Chinese University of Hong Kong, China

    Ping Ping Fu

  2. Pennsylvania State University, USA

    James L. Farr

  3. Peking University, China

    Siqing Peng, Yuan Chen & Xuehuang Yan

  4. Chinese Academy of Sciences, China

    Erping Wang, Fengying Luo & Yongjuan Li

  5. Zhongguancun Sci-Tech Region, China

    Shouqing Fu

  6. Tsinghua University, China

    Qinghong Peng

Authors
  1. Ping Ping Fu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. James L. Farr
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Siqing Peng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Yuan Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Xuehuang Yan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Erping Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Fengying Luo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Yongjuan Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Shouqing Fu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Qinghong Peng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, China

    Anne S. Tsui

  2. Chinese University of Hong Kong, China

    Chung-Ming Lau

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2002 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Fu, P.P. et al. (2002). Characteristics and Processes of Top Management Teams in High-Tech Firms. In: Tsui, A.S., Lau, CM. (eds) The Management of Enterprises in the People’s Republic of China. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-1095-6_16

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-1095-6_16

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4613-5392-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4615-1095-6

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation